You may not know me but I am a taxpayer and have lived on Gilmanton's Crystal Lake for 44 years, the last 12 as a resident at 347 Crystal Lake Road. I write you today to express my support for the Gilmanton Year Round Library. In my 44 years here, this library has given me and my family more support and pleasure than any other thing provided by the town. My lakefront taxes help support many less heavily taxed Gilmanton neighbors. Please use them to support the Year Round Library for everyone to use.

I have been dismayed by the backwoods and provincial attitude of the town fathers who have worked to block the good works provided by this library which my family and I had never found in the other two branch summer libraries. Their value to me and my family has been very small, but my family and I visit the GYRL two or three times a week enjoying their books, periodicals, programs and now the Farmer's Market which is open there summers.

To an outside observer the consolidation of the three libraries into one fully supported year round library makes so much sense that it is incredible to me that town leadership(?) has not made this happen.

Maintaining and supporting the GYRL makes good business sense for everyone in town as well. The backwoods and provincial attitude displayed by our town fathers in their attempt to block our library is well known. Prospective new homebuyers are usually very concerned about schools, education and quality of library. If the town fails now to support the library right across the street from our only school, prospective buyers will have no doubt about the kind of town to which they are thinking about bringing their children. Property values will suffer. Provide permanent support for the library and those property values will be enhanced. Avoid the perhaps permanent black eye for the town by fully supporting our GYRL.

A Meredith 3/25 advisory committee member published in a letter in the paper asserting, "... the three roundabout solution will improve things for residents, cars driving through town and pedestrians. The proposed two right turn lanes onto Route 25 will largely reduce congestion..." Maybe that is true... but no facts were offered in support of the assertion, either in the article or at the workshop session. Support would for the project would likely be unanimous if it is true ... but is there engineering suggesting this is the solution to the congestion issue the advisory committee member claims?

The presenter from McFarland Johnson did not provide engineering support for the assertion nor did he or DOT take ownership of the three, single-lane roundabout proposal. From the perspective of common sense, the problem with the assertion is that if you have one lane traffic entering the turn and one lane traffic leaving the turn, how does making two lanes at the turn increase the throughput capacity in the area?

The writer asserted: "The proposed roundabout at Pleasant Street will reduce or eliminate congestion from left turn traffic from Route 25 into the Hannaford shopping center..." Maybe that is true, but no facts were offered in support of the assertion. Certainly, everyone is in favor eliminating congestion, but what does the engineering show about the outcome?

We all know the congestion extends to an area greater than from Lake Street to Pleasant Street. The questions are:

— How is the proposed change going to impact the traffic in the area as a whole?

— Does installing three single-lane roundabouts in a small area in downtown increase or decrease the likelihood of gridlock?

— We have congestion now. What does the engineering tell us we will have if the three roundabout proposal is adopted?

The writer asserted: "Delays caused by pedestrian crossings on Route 3 will be reduced by the proposed central safety zone and single lane crosswalks at every approach..." Maybe that is true, but no facts were offered in support of the assertion. Everyone would want that to be true, but what does the engineering show the facts to be?

Users of this intersection need to get informed about this proposed project and get involved. Moving forward without sufficient facts may result in a sub-optimal outcome. Please reach out to the Selectboard with your concerns as they are readying a vote on the matter. They can be reached by email at: Nate Torr
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, Peter Brothers, Vice Chair
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, Carla Horne, Chair
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, Lou Kahn
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, Hillary Seeger
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

In response to L.J. Siden's letter of Dec. 30 concerning "death panels", in his letter he chides Mrs. Landry and me for "drawing conclusions that vastly exceed the implications of their evidence." In the same letter he calls "death panels" the "Lie of the Year." How is it that he can call a prediction of what will be one of the consequences of a provision of the ACA, that if I understand this right, has not yet been implemented, a lie. I can't help but notice the hypocrisy in that.

As I understand it, this panel would be comprised of 15 appointed members who would not be answerable to Congress except through a super majority in a limited window of opportunity in 2017, nor to the courts consequently there would virtually no congressional oversight and no appeal of their decisions.

Yes, I see that the bill has language that appears to forbid rationing, yet I understand that by setting the payment rate to providers low for specific procedures could accomplish the same effect.

As to the inclination of those who have proposed this bill, just by the fact that they wrote into this law a provision to take money from Medicare and diverted it to the ACA, should give you some inclination as to their priorities. And as I stated in an earlier correspondence, the lack of concern for the sanctity of human life shown by those who drive the liberal agenda — who don't seem to care about your life unless you're a terrorist or a thug — are those likely to be appointed to this panel who will almost arbitrarily have power to impose their will over those in this system, does not seem good to me. Even if there is language in the bill that would seem to be meant to restrain these things, without oversight or a mechanism for enforcement they would be just words on a piece of paper, something we see way too often already.

This is a very complex bill. Most of us need help in understanding it. I'll be up-front about that. I'd like to thank Mrs. Landry for drawing our attention to AARP's duplicity in claiming to be an advocate for seniors while supporting the provision of the ACA that takes money from Medicare and redistributes it to the ACA and then selling insurance to seniors to supplement their Medicare coverage. Mr. Siden, if you remember used AARP as one of his fact checkers.If my perception is right. It would seem the line from a Bob Dylan song from the 60's would be appropriate, "and the executioners face is always well hidden." If we live and the IPAB provision of the ACA is not overturned we will see whose version turns out to be true and whose turns out to be false.

In the past, we reported unwanted telemarketing calls to our "do not call" government agencies. Our phones record day, time and the number that called us.

However, the latest trick telemarketing people now use is and shows up as: "Private Caller or Unknown Name." Then the phone number is shown all with zeros — 000 000-0000. There is no chance to report this crooks.

Here on Friday, the second day of the new year, Henry Hosmer writes that he thinks some letters writers write under multiple names. Henry's usually good for a laugh, though at times I've wondered that, too. He seems to think that Russ Wiles and I are one and the same.

For Henry's peace of mind, I assure him and readers we are indeed two different people. Henry must have missed The Sun's edition which had the story in it of a group of us letter writers getting together for lunch at T-Bones complete with picture. Both Russ and I were there in the photo.

Incidentally, we all plan to have other get-togethers in the future to which all writers are invited, left or right. Look for time and date here if interested and welcome.